Founding Fathers Did Not Want Or Promote Political Parties

1. 89

   GA Andersonposted 7 years ago

   After seeing a couple comments that appear to say our Founding Fathers understood the brilliance of ideological parties , (political parties), implying, (at least to me), they thought political parties were a good idea, it seemed a little fact-checking was in order.
   
   I did not find perspectives for all of those considered to be Founding Fathers, but I did find a very opposite position from three of the most well known ones.
   
   Ben Franklin spoke against the formation of political parties on the floor of Constitution Hall.
   
   James Madison spoke against them in Federalist paper #10.
   
   George Washington rued the formation of The Federalist, and The Democrat-Republican parties as early as the 1796 election. He lamented that the fractiousness of the parties would divide the new nation instead of uniting it.
   
   I think they were right.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I remember that.
      
      But there were already strains in the new republic between those that saw a  mercantile future and those on the agrarian track. While the Founding Fathers would have prefered no political parties, I doubt that it could have been avoided.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. It is only logical for like-minded folks to band together to increase their power. I don't see anything wrong with that - as much as I lament the dividing nature of such actions.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 82

      HSchneiderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The Founding Fathers who helped to write the Constitution, mainly James Madison, considered political parties to be evil and they felt our republic would shun them. That is why we had the explosive election of 1800 that could have ended in civil war. Each state's electors had 2 votes and everyone of Jefferson's electors split their votes between he and Aaron Burr. Burr was expected to be his Vice President but it ended up in a tie between the 2 and thus the election ended up in the House of Representatives. The Federalists could have wreaked havoc with this but did not. It could have ended up in war because the Virginia and Pennsylvania militias were called up in case of any chicanery. This was all because the Founders thought all would vote as statesmen not party members. The Founders never saw this element and the Constitution was changed a few years later to be more in line with the system we have now. Of course, we still ended up with a few other contested elections including Bush v Gore in 2000.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Hi, HS, nice to see you again, trust all is well?
         
         Speaking about dichotomy of political activity and loyalties in the early days, it is easy to follow the agrarians into the 19th century as the pro-slavery Democratic party and the mercantile interests into the Whigs and later GOP.

         replyreport
2. 53

   CARLOS CUCHETposted 7 years ago

   I concur

   replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   I think you guys are quoting something out of the context of my postings ,.........., Lets clarify , Our founding fathers understood and included  opposing ideologies INTO the nuts and bolts designing  of our government , and in recognizing  this , designed the brilliance of  inclusion  by ultimately  CONTROLLING  those factions ,  There have always been ideologies outside of their originating beliefs , they knew and understood that  and so mostly  ,nullified those factional powers.   The party divisions  were there from the beginning and delicately dealt with . 
   
   In truth , a delicate balance of ideologies included what we now  know as the  right and  left . The difference  ? They , as opposing forces then , did not control politics !    They certainly didn't define  politics  the way they do now . NOW , the extremist's of the right and left are essentially useless !    What they have evolved into today are anchors of ideology that  hold all REAL progress  from  becoming change. Essentially  halting productivity in politics !
   
   The present day laziness of party affiliation is the difference and the safety in laziness  of aligning on the extremes is the problem today , it allows you  from having to think . But , If any of you think that Americans then were somehow more unified , you are wrong .    The divide was there all along , the parties just didn't have todays names.
   
   You'll notice I never said the brilliance of Republicans or Democrats !

   replyreport